We are the richest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy. We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away. GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Doesn't that mean that your lack of support for the Democrats mean that a party even farther from your position will do better?

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

My friends call me one all the time (along with dirty hippie among other amusing labels), I wouldn't go so far as to agree with them on that, but I'm not ashamed of the label. I'm happy to support my fellow working class Americans against the tyranny of the GOP.

Nemo's Brother:60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And it turns out those parents didn't have to pay because the school was still feeding their kids. What's the incentive for them to? The nutritional horror of cheese sandwiches? Come to think of it, where can I get mine?

bluenovaman:We are the richest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy. We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away. GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.

Just had a similar conversation with a co-worker. She was showing off all the things I-phones, I-pads etc can do (I don't even try to keep up with this stuff--don't need to).

It occurred to me--Damn, we can do all this amazing--truly AMAZING--things, build such fantastic stuffs...but we can't seem to make sure people have food. WTF.

If people are really interested in joining a socialist party be prepared for what you are getting involved with (I am a socialist). Socialists are not democrats and they are not liberals. Socialism is a revolutionary movement. You will likely not be successful with getting socialist candidates elected, you will read a lot of Marx and Lenin and you will be asked to be involved with many demonstrations.

tricycleracer:Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

rkiller1:tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

HotWingConspiracy:rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

rkiller1:HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.

this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

HotWingConspiracy:rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.

Dirtybird971:this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.

SubBass49:I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.

Somerville, MA has recently decided to provide free, nutritious breakfast to every student in public school, regardless of income, and reduce the cost of lunch to $2.75 per meal, and has this policy for students who haven't paid:All students who are not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch or have not submitted a lunch application are required to pay for lunch if they choose to get a lunch from the cafeteria. Students are allowed to debit up to ($25.00) and still receive lunch. Students that have reached this threshold of owing $25.00 will not be allowed to receive additional lunches until they submit payment. However they will be able to receive cereal, fruit, juice and milk anytime they do not have money. Students in grades K through 2 will be allowed to receive lunch regardless of the amount of money owed. All students will be provided with nutritious food each day and no student will be denied food.

Oh, for f***'s sake. Yes, the decision to follow policy rather than think about how their actions would look was ridiculous. But the histrionics that have followed have lost all sense of perspective, and calling this guy a "hero" for ostentatiously paying the bills is beyond idiotic.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

Can I assume that the parents got multiple warnings (written, phone calls, in person) and simply ignored all of them? Because if that's the case, then yeah...you don't have much choice left. But if they haven't received those warnings...I'd probably start there.

rkiller1:HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this. So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will. And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids. Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

jedikinkoid:Oh, for f***'s sake. Yes, the decision to follow policy rather than think about how their actions would look was ridiculous. But the histrionics that have followed have lost all sense of perspective, and calling this guy a "hero" for ostentatiously paying the bills is beyond idiotic.

Well, get Drew to make a "Damn nice fellow" tag and we can use that next time. Ok?